- Research article
- Open Access
- Open Peer Review
What does it cost to redispense unused medications in the pharmacy? A micro-costing study
© The Author(s). 2019
- Received: 27 March 2018
- Accepted: 5 April 2019
- Published: 24 April 2019
Redispensing unused medications that have been returned to outpatient pharmacies by patients may reduce waste and healthcare costs. However, little is known regarding the extra costs associated with this process, nor the price level of medications for which this is economically beneficial. The objective of this study was to assess costs associated with redispensing unused medications in the pharmacy and the price level at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial.
A micro-costing study was conducted in four Dutch outpatient pharmacies for medications requiring room-temperature storage and requiring refrigeration. First, the pharmacy’s necessary additional process steps and resources for redispensing were identified. Second, time required for each process step was simulated. Third, required resources were quantified by calculating labour, purchasing and overhead costs. Lastly, a model with different scenarios was constructed to calculate the price of a medication package at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial.
Three main additional process steps for redispensing were identified: (1) pack medications with product quality indicators before dispensing, (2) assess quality of medications returned to the pharmacy (temperature storage, package integrity, expiry date) and (3a) restock medications fulfilling quality criteria or (3b) dispose of medications not fulfilling criteria. Total time required for all steps up to restock one medication package was on average 5.3 (SD ±0.3) and 6.8 (SD ±0.3) minutes for medications stored at room-temperature and under refrigeration, respectively, and associated costs were €5.54 and €7.61. Similar outcomes were found if a medication package would ultimately be disposed of. The price level primarily depended upon the proportion of dispensed packages returned unused to the pharmacy and fulfilling the quality criteria: if 5% is returned, of which 60% fulfils quality criteria, the price level was €101 per package for medications requiring room-temperature storage and €215 per package for those requiring refrigeration. However, if 10% is returned, of which 60% fulfils the quality criteria, the price level decreases to €53 and €109, respectively (arbitrary proportions).
Redispensing unused medications in the pharmacy is at least cost-beneficial if applied to expensive medications.
- Medication waste
- Healthcare economics
- Cost-benefit ratio
Pharmaceutical care, including both prescription and over-the-counter medications, represents a substantial proportion of the global healthcare budget . However, up to one-third of patients do, for various reasons, not use all medication dispensed to them [2, 3]. It is difficult to precisely estimate the extent and costs of unused medications because disposal occurs at various moments in time, such as during therapy, months hereafter or even after patient’s death, and through multiple routes, including returning unused medications to the pharmacy, disposing of them as household waste or flushing them down the toilet . Conservative estimates suggest that around $5 billion and £300 million is annually wasted in the US and UK, respectively [2, 5]. These numbers indicate that substantial resources are wasted in the form of unused medications, which highlights the need for the implementation of interventions effectively reducing unnecessary medication waste.
Some packages that are returned to the pharmacy still are completely unopened and intact [6, 7]. These medications could theoretically be redispensed in the pharmacy if they are still of good quality, thereby reducing medication waste and optimising the use of healthcare resources. The discussion on the potential of redispensing unused medications as a waste-reducing intervention is not new [6, 8–10]. However, redispensing is currently not implemented in pharmacies , mainly because of legal restrictions, uncertainty about the quality of the returned medications, lack of knowledge regarding patient support for such an approach and uncertainty about the cost-benefits of the redispensing process [12, 13].
To determine whether the implementation of the redispensing of unused medications in the pharmacy is cost-beneficial, a better understanding of the costs associated with this process is required. Such an assessment will facilitate the identification of the types of medications that are eligible for redispensing. This study therefore aimed to assess the costs associated with redispensing unused medications in the pharmacy. Furthermore, an attempt was made to define the price level at which redispensing becomes cost-beneficial.
Study design and setting
A micro-costing study was performed in four hospital-based outpatient pharmacies in the Netherlands between February and June 2016. Micro-costing studies comprise the detailed identification and measurement of all process steps and resources used for an intervention, in this case redispensing, which are subsequently quantified into costs . In this study, a healthcare provider’s perspective was used, for which only the provider’s (pharmacy) costs in the redispensing process were considered. The economic analysis was performed according to Dutch pharmacoeconomic guidelines .
An important prerequisite for redispensing unused medications is a guaranteed product quality. To ensure proper storage of medications at patients’ homes, various criteria should be monitored, such as storage temperature, light and humidity exposure and package integrity (unopened, intact). In addition, the medication should have a sufficient long shelf life (here, an expiry date at least 6 months in the future) . It was assumed that an additional outer package (i.e. transparent seal bag) combined with manufacturer’s original primary and secondary packaging would be sufficient to ensure proper storage in terms of light and humidity exposure. This would also facilitate the assessment of the package integrity if the seal is unbroken, ensuring that the package remains unopened and undamaged.
Two types of medications were distinguished based on their storage recommendations; medications requiring storage at room-temperature (15–25 °C) and medications requiring refrigeration at (2–8 °C). Previous research has shown that medications requiring room-temperature storage are generally stored at an appropriate temperature, whereas medications requiring refrigeration are often stored outside the recommended temperature range, including below 0 °C [16, 17]. Therefore, for medications requiring refrigeration detailed temperature information is needed to assess proper storage. It was assumed that a digital temperature measurement logger system would be needed to measure temperature constantly for these medications, but that a simple indicator that indicates out-of-range temperatures (for example, by changing colour) would be sufficient for monitoring storage temperature of medications requiring room-temperature storage.
Process identification and time measurements
To identify all the additional process steps and resources on top of standard pharmacy practice needed to redispense unused medications, pharmacy staff from the participating four pharmacies were interviewed. The researchers composed a list of the expected process steps and materials required, which was sent to the pharmacists prior to the interview, and the pharmacy staff was asked to adjust the list, adding or excluding steps and materials, and to identify the type of pharmacy staff (e.g. technician or pharmacist) involved in each step.
Process steps required to redispense unused medications in the pharmacy, the mean time spent on each step and the associated costs. All process steps could be performed by a pharmacy technician unless stated otherwise
Medication requiring room-temperature storage
Medication requiring refrigeration
Mean time (minutes; min-max)
Mean time (minutes; min-max)
Step 1. Prepare medication before dispensing
▪ Register patient information and medication intended for dispensing in PHISa
▪ Collect a sealbag and temperature-measuring device
▪ Activate temperature-measuring device
▪ Place medication with temperature-measuring device in sealbag
▪ Inform the patient about the redispensing process
Step 2. Assess quality of returned medication
▪ Register returned medication in PHIS
▪ Place medication in a storage location if not assessed directly
▪ Determine the quality of the medication and register temperature storage, package integrity and expiry date
▪ Place medication in storage location
▪ Review and sign off checklist by pharmacist
Step 3a. Restock medication that fulfil all quality criteria
▪ Collect medication from storage location
▪ Remove old patient label from medication package
▪ Document the restocking in PHIS
▪ Place medication in pharmacy stockb
Step 3b. Dispose of medication that not fulfil quality criteria
▪ Collect medication from storage location
▪ Document the disposal in PHIS
▪ Place medication in disposal bin
Step 4a. Collect and restock temperature loggers returned by post
Step 4b. Collect and restock temperature loggers returned as normal care
▪ Take logger from envelope (paid by pharmacy)
▪ Deactivate logger
▪ Place logger in stock
Medication that returns to stock (step 1,2,3a)
5.3 (SD ±0.3)
6.8 (SD ±0.3)
Medication that is disposed of (step 1,2,3b)
5.2 (SD ±0.4)
6.7 (SD ±0.5)
Unit cost of labour and materials
Unit cost (€, 2016)
Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association
Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association
Telatemp warmmark time temperature indicator
Safe-Rx, Confrerie Clinique
Software and licence for logger
Safe-Rx, Confrerie Clinique
Zebra Z-select 2000D label
The model to calculate the break-even point, italic variables were varied among the scenarios. In this care, 10% of dispensed medication is returned to the pharmacy of which 60% would meet the quality criteria
Medication requiring room-temperature storage
Medication requiring refrigeration
Total cost (€)
Total cost (€)
Step 4. Loggers
a. Returned by post
b. Returned as normal care
d. Logger system 1 year
Price level per single package (Total/3a units)
In addition, the number needed to dispense (i.e. the number of dispensed medication packages that are needed in order to restock one medication package) was calculated for each scenario to indicate the number of medication packages that needed to obtain benefits from redispensing. Therefore, the number of dispensed medication packages was divided by the number of medication packages that returned to stock.
Data were entered into Microsoft Excel 2010 and descriptively analysed. Averages were expressed as means with standard deviations (SD) or their minimum and maximum values, and proportions were reported as percentages.
Process identification and time measurements
The total time required to perform all process steps up to restocking one medication package was on average 5.3 (SD ±0.3) minutes if requiring room-temperature storage and 6.8 (SD ±0.3) minutes if requiring refrigeration (Table 1). Similar outcomes were found if a medication package would ultimately be disposed of, respectively 5.2 (SD ±0.4) minutes and 6.7 (SD ±0.5) minutes. Time differences between room-temperature stored medications and those requiring refrigeration were a result of time required for temperature logger activation and assessment compared to the temperature sensor. For both medication types, more than half of the time was spent on the quality assessment of returned medications.
The costs associated with all process steps and resources, including direct labour- and material costs and indirect overhead costs, required to ultimately return one medication package to stock was €5.54 if requiring room-temperature storage, while these costs were €7.61 for a package requiring refrigeration (Table 1). Similar costs were found if the package would ultimately be disposed of.
Price level estimation
In this micro-costing study, all additional process steps and resources required to redispense unused medications in the pharmacy were explicitly identified and quantified, and the costs associated with these were assessed. The price-level at which redispensing unused medications becomes cost-beneficial was identified and found to vary strongly depending on the proportion of dispensed packages that is returned unused to the pharmacy that fulfil the quality criteria.
Most studies that address the potential cost savings related to redispensing unused medications include solely the cost of the medications that remain unused [7, 21–24] and do not take into account the associated pharmacy costs. Glanville et al. assessed the pharmacy’s operational costs for redispensing medications donated by patients to patients who lack health insurance and financial means to obtain medication. Their analysis was based on the cost of the donated medications, minus the pharmacy costs needed for the quality assessment, resulting in a total net cost of the redispensed medications . In contrast, this study provides detailed information on the pharmacy costs of the redispensing process when implemented as normal care.
Most costs that enable redispensing would already be made during the initial dispensing of medications to the patient, which requires additional materials to protect the original packaging and to measure home storage temperature conditions. To cover all pharmacy costs associated with redispensing, the price level identified from the analysis indicates that implementation is most likely to be cost-beneficial for expensive medications. The price level was estimated for one therapeutic class of which it was assumed that 10.000 medication packages would be dispensed in a year (base case). However, this may not be feasible to dispense for a small pharmacy. Therefore, a general model was created that can be used for multiple scenarios. Varying the quantity of dispensed medication packages would not impact the determined price levels for medications that require room-temperature storage. However, for medications that require refrigeration, the determined price levels are likely to decrease or increase, due to costs related to the logger system that is needed for monitoring temperature storage. For these reasons also, the price level for cost-beneficial redispensing is higher for medications requiring refrigeration compared to those requiring room-temperature storage.
The price level will decrease if more unused medications that fulfil the quality criteria are returned to the pharmacy. However, many patients do not return their unused medications to the pharmacy and dispose of them through, for instance, the household waste system instead [3, 4]. National awareness campaigns could be implemented to increase the proportion of medication that is returned unused to the pharmacies, which is likely to increase the quantity eligible for redispensing. Increasing patient awareness on proper home storage could also increase the proportion of medications returned to the pharmacy that meet the quality criteria. Campaign costs were not included in this study, and if such awareness programmes were developed, this may affect the estimated process costs if these should be covered by the pharmacy. In addition, implementation costs and effort for large scale workflow adjustments were not considered. Overall, the estimated price levels indicate at which price redispensing becomes cost-beneficial and all costs that the pharmacy makes for this process are covered. In general, large-scale implementation involving more therapeutic classes may decrease the direct and indirect costs of the pharmacy investments per package and could provide further economic benefits.
In this study, the pharmacy’s process costs associated with redispensing unused medications were estimated. If a redispensing system would be implemented in practice as normal care, one should consider how the monetary benefits are shared among all involved stakeholders. It can be argued that patients are less willing to return their unused medications to the pharmacy when only pharmacists financially benefit from redispensing. On the other hand, pharmacists are less likely to redispense medications if the additional costs are not covered. According to stakeholders, the financial benefits can be shared among patients, pharmacists and health insurance companies or used for research .
By redispensing unused medications that are currently disposed of, waste can potentially be avoided. In a previous study many stakeholders including pharmacists expressed concerns about the feasibility of implementation of redispensing in current clinical practice . On the other hand, multiple stakeholders highlighted that, in order to realise successful implementation of redispensing, several requirements should be met, such as extensive public engagement, quality assurance of returned medications and an evaluated cost-benefit ratio [10, 13]. Other studies have confirmed that the majority of patients and professionals support redispensing if their concerns about medication safety and quality are addressed [26, 27]. Redispensing is prohibited in some countries under current legislation, mainly due to uncertainty about the quality of unused medications and a fear of counterfeit medications entering the supply chain. The latter is currently being tackled by the European Union Directives 2011/62/EU and EU2016/161, which demand that manufacturers add tamper indicators and unique identification codes to their outer packaging. Furthermore, if these medications are dispensed in a closed seal bag by the pharmacy and only eligible for redispensing when returned unopened this risk is minimised. In terms of quality assurance, medications should be dispensed to patients in the manufacturer’s original outer packaging with tamper-evident seals and thermal devices [13, 28]. Based on these outcomes, one can assume that most requirements to enable the successful implementation of redispensing in practice can be fulfilled.
Strengths and limitations
The main strength of this study is the use of a micro-costing approach, which is the most comprehensive and precise method to estimate the costs of an intervention . The study also has some limitations. Primarily, this is a simulation study and the process steps that were identified may differ if redispensing is implemented in real practice. However, redispensing is not routinely performed in the pharmacy and therefore these simulations enabled a detailed estimation of the time and resources involved, which was required to calculate the costs. Furthermore, pharmacy staff was not experienced in simulating the process steps, which may have resulted in increased times. Most process steps were similar to the normal pharmacy practice, and three consecutive simulations were performed to increase their experience, of which the last was considered most accurate. It can be assumed that the number of simulations performed by the pharmacy technicians was sufficient to simulate real practice. It was not possible to simulate stock adjustments and communication with the financial department, and no training of the pharmacy staff was included in the analysis. This may have resulted in lower estimations of the time and cost, and ultimately in an underestimation of the price level. However, this would not have altered our general findings that only expensive medication packages are eligible for redispensing. In addition, a healthcare provider’s perspective was used for the cost estimates, and no societal costs were taken into account. In our view, redispensing requires limited effort from society, other than the patients returning their unused medications to the pharmacy. Most patients visit their pharmacy regularly and one can assume that returning unused medication would not result in additional visits. Finally, this study was performed in a Dutch outpatient pharmacy setting and as such, the outcomes may be less generalizable to other countries. We believe that the identified process steps will be similar between countries, however, the unit costs that were included in the analysis may vary. The proportion of dispensed packages that remain unused and are returned to the pharmacy may depend on national prescribing and dispensing policies. Therefore, a general model with various scenarios was build that can be used in different settings as an indicator to determine the price level of medications eligible for redispensing. This model is the best case scenario model and in the real world practice there are some more assumptions and different probabilities which can make these estimated costs higher.
This study demonstrates that the redispensing of unused medications in the pharmacy is cost-beneficial if applied to expensive medications. This threshold can lower if more medications are returned unused to the pharmacy and have been properly stored at patients’ homes of which the quality can thus be guaranteed.
The authors thank all the pharmacy staff who participated in this study
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
CB: Conception, design, data collection, data analysis, and writing manuscript. HG: conception, design, data interpretation, manuscript reviewing. AE: conception, design, data interpretation, manuscript reviewing. HM: conception, design, data collection, data interpretation, manuscript reviewing. MB: conception, design, data interpretation, manuscript reviewing. BB: conception, design, data interpretation, manuscript reviewing. AH: conception, design, data interpretation, manuscript reviewing. All authors contributed to conception and design. CB and HAM collected the data. CLB was a major contributor in analysis of data and in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Participating pharmacy employees gave oral consent prior to participation, which was approved by the ethics committee. The study was reviewed and approved by the UPPER institutional review board of the Utrecht University (no.1604) .
Consent for publication
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- OECD. Pharmaceutical spending (indicator). 2017. https://data.oecd.org/healthres/pharmaceutical-spending.htm. Accessed 10 July 2017.
- Trueman P, Lowson K, Blighe A, Meszaros A, Wright D, Glanville J. Evaluation of the scale , causes and costs of waste medicines. London: YHEC/School of Pharmacy, University of London; 2010. ISBN 978 090 293 620 1.Google Scholar
- Reitsma M, Brabers A, Korevaar J, De JJ, van DM, van DL. One third of the medicine users has medicines left unused [Dutch]. Utrecht: Nivel; 2013.Google Scholar
- Kusturica M, Tomas A, Sabo A. Diposal of unused drugs: knowledge and behaviour among people around the world. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 2017;240:71–104.Google Scholar
- SIRUM. Supporting Initiatives to Redistribute Unused Medicine. 2014. www.sirum.org. Accessed 10 July 2017.
- Mackridge AJ, Marriott JF. Returned medicines: waste or a wasted opportunity? J Public Health. 2007;29:258–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bekker CL, Bemt BJF Van Den, Egberts ACG, Bouvy ML, Gardarsdottir H. Patient and medication factors associated with preventable medication waste and possibilities for redispensing. Int J Clin Pharm. 2018;40(3):704–711.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pomerantz J. Recycling expensive medication: why not? MedGenMed. 2004;6:4.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Tchen J, Vaillancourt R, Pouliot A. Wasted medications, wasted resource. Can Pharm J. 2013;146:181–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bekker CL, Gardarsdottir H, Egberts TCG, Bouvy ML, van den Bemt BJF. Redispensing of medicines unused by patients: a qualitative study among stakeholders. Int J Clin Pharm. 2017;39:196–204.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bekker CL, Gardarsdottir H, Egberts ACG, Bouvy ML, van den Bemt BJF. Pharmacists’ activities to reduce medication waste: an international survey. Pharmacy 2018;6(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy6030094.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- WHO. Guidelines for medicine donations revised 2010. Geneva; 2011.Google Scholar
- Mcrae D, Allman M, James D. The redistribution of medicines: could it become a reality. Int J Pharm Pract. 2016;24:411–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Drummond MF, Sculper MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care Programmes. London: Oxford University Press; 2015.Google Scholar
- Guideline for economic evaluations in healthcare [Dutch]. Diemen: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015.Google Scholar
- Vlieland ND, Gardarsdottir H, Bouvy ML, Egberts TCG. Bemt BJF Van Den. The majority of patients do not store their biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs within the recommended temperature range. Rheumatology. 2016;55:704–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Vlieland ND, Van Den BBJF, van R-ND, Bouvy ML, Egberts ACG, Gardarsdottir H. Actual versus recommended storage temperatures of oral oncolytic drugs at patients’ homes. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2016;25(2):382–389.Google Scholar
- Dutch Society for Pharmacists. CAO Pharmacies [Dutch] 2015.Google Scholar
- Costing guide: methods of cost research and reference pricing for economic evaluations in healthcare [Dutch]. Rotterdam: Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University Rotterdam; 2015.Google Scholar
- CBS. Inflation rate 2016. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=83131ned. Accessed 5 July 2017.
- Toh MR, Chew L. Turning waste medicines to cost savings: a pilot study on the feasibility of medication recycling as a solution to drug wastage. Palliat Med. 2017;31:35–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lenzer J. US could recycle 10 million unused prescription drugs a year, report says. BMJ. 2014;349:g7677.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Langley C, Marriott J, Mackridge A, Daniszewski R. An analysis of returned medicines in primary care. Pharm World Sci. 2005;27:296–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bekker CL, Melis EJ, Egberts ACG, Bouvy ML, Gardarsdottir H, Van Den Bemt BJF. Quantity and economic value of unused oral anti-cancer and biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among outpatient pharmacy patients who discontinue therapy. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(1):100–105.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Glanville M, Brady R, Miller S. Operation donate: defining the value of redispensing medications donated by individuals. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2014;54:542–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Alhamad H, Patel N, Donyai P. How do people conceptualise the reuse of medicines? An interview study. Int J Pharm Pract. 2018;26:231–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hendrick A, Baqir W, Barrett S, Campbell D. Prescribing Mrs Smith’s medication to Mr Jones: the views of patients and professionals on the reuse of returned medicines. Pharm Manag. 2013;29:25–6.Google Scholar
- Dicomidis J, Kirby A. Reuse of medicines: looking beyond the waste blame game. Prescriber. 2012;23:13–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Koster ES, Blom L, Philbert D, Rump W, Bouvy ML. The Utrecht pharmacy practice network for education and research: a network of community and hospital pharmacies in the Netherlands. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36:669–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar